When you live so 'in close contact with reality', and 'very easy to lose sight of the neutral point of view. This goes for everyone, unfortunately. Applies to the conspiracy, which fall beyond repair in a spiral of madness where only their ideas are right and where everything is seen by their distorting lens. You lose touch with reality '. This is true but 'also for those working on the other hand, for those seeking the truth 'in the midst of the lies. Unfortunately few of them succeed, 'cause these, too, sooner or later end up becoming slaves of their convictions, therefore the case that are no longer' examined the data and are derived from these concepts (and how 'right to be). No, the opposite happens. From the ideas, some concepts are derived data. This is called ideology.
Attivissimo Paul has often made an excellent job in some fields of study. For heaven's sake ', and' also true that I consider much of the research done wasted energy, because I firmly believe that we should not feel too well with the head about Sept. 11 conspiracies or humans that it 's never gone to the moon.
That said, Paul Attivissimo recently examined the case of Buzz Aldrin said that on Phobos (Mars asteroid) there is' a monolith "weird." According Attivissimo, ufologists (who are regarded as scum indistinct, all strictly conspiracy) cheered 'cause I thought it was a confirmation that the monolith was of extra-terrestrial origins.
analyze the situation with the right rigor:
1) Buzz Aldrin never spoke of a man-made object on Phobos.
-> This point is 'clear, and it' also made it clear from the speech of Paul Attivissimo. Except that, according to the ideas of active, for UFO (indistinct), Buzz Aldrin had confirmed the existence of a monolith of artificial origin. So I wonder, by what mental operation Attivissimo Paul has created this mass "indistinct" of ufologists who said, unanimously, 'Aldrin said that the existence of an artificial monolith?
Chira this ideal type of Ufology and 'Attivissimo was generated by using a highly ideological thought process, which puts the ufologist like a conspiracy.
In any case, very busy at this time is right to say that Buzz Aldrin has never talked about man-made structure.
2) The problems are on point 2, where Attivissimo played a bit 'too much on words, always be overshadowed by his ideology. Is very active and 'even bother to quote the definition from a dictionary of Monolithic. Typical ploy of those who have never done in his life and academic research that has as its highest point of 'truth' "the dictionary (lol), but that 's another story.
Attivissimo argued openly referred to as the Monolith Aldrin spoke to was absolutely natural sources (which are in the same video, Buzz says, "and 'was to put the Universe, or God if you want). According Attivissimo therefore Buzz spoke simply because 'this monolith would stimulate the public once again into space, given that in recent times very few are interested in space. E ' what I also said Aldrin. We
but 'we are intelligent people and not hide behind a finger, this is the finger of Attivissimo or Aldrin. What I want to reflect on which are the words of Aldrin, not the nature of the monolith. Whether natural or artificial at this juncture I do not care.
But do you think the public would really be pushed to a new interest in space only for a natural stone from the normal form curious?!?! I mean, 'with all the interesting things that we are in space (think of Mars), NASA should venture into a multibillion-dollar project to go to a picture of a stone "natural" to stimulate public opinion?
To me, as a common citizen, to go to a picture of a normal stone, I could care less. And you? Moreover, as a scientist, I would find a lot more 'interesting to study (example) better than the atmosphere of Mars, which one (A is A) only Rock. Are you kidding? What is' a joke?
So how to solve this issue? The question has one answer. Repeating once again that we do not know the source of that monolith and we're just looking statements Aldrin ... It 'obvious even to a 5 year old child who was playing Buzz deliberately with the allusion to a structure of extra-terrestrial nature. 'Cause this is, of course, could go to stimulate the public to space research.
So inviteteri davverso Mr. Attivissimo to do more 'attention with his post next time.
In the coming days we will also open another question from Attivissimo, Edgar Mitchell's claims. Where even in this case there are obvious structural errors. Suffice it to say that the issue is so open ':
"Edgar Mitchell says UFOs exist" BUFFALO
Well, here it is apparent the fabulous Attivissimo scientific method, that is the envy of the most' noble conspiracy sites. Why
'Edgar Mitchell has really said that UFOs exist, so it is not' a hoax. You can 'then discuss whether the content of the statement is true or false (if UFOs exist or not), but that Edgar Mitchell has claimed that UFOs exist is' a fact, true.
Attivissimo Not likely.
PS Forgive the lack of accents, but I write from a U.S. keyboard.
0 comments:
Post a Comment